Biblie Busting vs. Darwin Deconstructing

[Thurnez Isa]

evolved from primates not monkeys
there is a difference
1) there is no room in evolution to have the  entire population of a species to evolve to a new species
only a small groups change as the enviromental factors indicate, or they go extinct, it only works through the passage of genes. its not a force that says this species will turn into this species... you can see this in snakes for instance... allthough Garter snakes in northern canada and the US are the same species... Canadian Garter Snakes are much smaller... you can see this in people as well... think of the small differences in genetics between people of different cultural backgrounds.. although they are the same species there are differences in size, colour and resistance to disease, depending on the enviromental factors their ancenstors came from
2) monkeys still are evolving... even if its not into new species... you see this in people.. people are generally taller then they were just say 100 years ago... go back to the medieval times and someone like me, whos only 5 foot 6, would be considered tall
different chimpanzees for instance have slight differences from each other depending on the their enviroment
i dont think there will be a major shift in species till the extinction of humans
evolution works better with large isolated pockets, while now most species have to live in one area due to human interferences... those that are seperated from each other in reserves or in the wild due to human civilization probably already show small differences from each other
but you need lots of small differences to create a new species... and thousands of years.. put it this way those that came over to north america thousands of years ago did develop slight differences from those from Europe and Asia, but not even close enough to prevent breeding

[Cain]

The owner of reasons.org is Dr Hugh Ross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist by training, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, but he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.

Also some very good methodological criticism of Ross and his theories can be found here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm

[Thurnez Isa]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IHowitworks.shtml (This is a kids site I know, one my students showed me it during a lesson and I really liked it... don't ask me how this came up during a guitar lesson but I noticed the topic seems to be coming up in daily life more and more and I don't know if it is a good thing or bad thing, which actually maybe topic for discussion in its self)

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01

[Thurnez Isa]

The owner of reasons.org is Dr Hugh Ross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(creationist)

Hugh Norman Ross (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadian-born Old Earth creationist and Christian apologist. An astronomer and astrophysicist by training, he has established his own ministry called Reasons To Believe that promotes forms of Old Earth creationism known as progressive creationism and day-age creationism. Ross accepts the scientific evidence of the age of the earth and the age of the universe, but he rejects evolution and abiogenesis as explanations for the history and origin of life.

Also some very good methodological criticism of Ross and his theories can be found here: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ross.cfm

holy shit
thanks
I totally missed that
i should have picked up on that
Im totally ashamed

[Vene]

My only issue with evolution and humans evolving from monkeys is.....

1. Why are there still monkeys?
2. Why are there no goups still evolving from said monkeys?

Speaking as a biologist:

1.  There is a process called divergent evolution.  It's where a population of sexually reproducing individuals is separated.  They then go on different evolutionary paths.  Or, to use an analogy: If Americans came from the British, why are there still British?

2.  They are still evolving.  Although not a monkey, our closest living relative (the chimpanzee) has actually undergone more evolution than us (link).

As for missing links, what missing links?  Multiple hominid fossils.


By the way, the strongest evidence of evolution and common descent is molecular.  One of my favorite is endogenous retroviruses.

[Requia ☣]

Interesting, I would not have thought Chimpanzee genes would have changed as much given the fairly small morphological differences between Chimpanzees and our last point of common decent.

Do they have any idea what these genetic changes did yet?

[Verbal Mike]

Thorny, your student's website is excellent, bravo!

[Thurnez Isa]

Thorny, your student's website is excellent, bravo!

I must say i do like it
its not his website obviously
but he was a young lad and i was telling him how i was going back to school for paleobiology and I was amazed how absolutely knowledgable this kid was so he wrote this site down

[Thurnez Isa]

My only issue with evolution and humans evolving from monkeys is.....

1. Why are there still monkeys?
2. Why are there no goups still evolving from said monkeys?

Speaking as a biologist:

1.  There is a process called divergent evolution.  It's where a population of sexually reproducing individuals is separated.  They then go on different evolutionary paths.  Or, to use an analogy: If Americans came from the British, why are there still British?

2.  They are still evolving.  Although not a monkey, our closest living relative (the chimpanzee) has actually undergone more evolution than us (link).

As for missing links, what missing links?  Multiple hominid fossils.


By the way, the strongest evidence of evolution and common descent is molecular.  One of my favorite is endogenous retroviruses.

[Vene]

Interesting, I would not have thought Chimpanzee genes would have changed as much given the fairly small morphological differences between Chimpanzees and our last point of common decent.

Do they have any idea what these genetic changes did yet?

From the paper I linked to previously:
]
It looks like immunity to me (by the way, PSG stands for positively selected gene).

[Rumckle]

They finally wised up? 

Also, big-bang wise, last time I checked it hasn't really been proven, at least not to the extent of evolution, but it is the best theory we have at the moment. Of course singularities have always been fucked up.

[Vene]

They finally wised up? 

Also, big-bang wise, last time I checked it hasn't really been proven, at least not to the extent of evolution, but it is the best theory we have at the moment. Of course singularities have always been fucked up.

Gravity hasn't been as proven as evolution, so that's not really saying much.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Thank you Cain, Isa and Vene!!

I am off to read more!

[Cramulus]

Creationisn and Evolution are equal in that

• Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
• Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk

[LMNO]

Creationisn and Evolution are equal in that

• Both have 'evidence' that backs up the 'facts'
• Both sides think that the other's evidence is bunk

Creationists have evidence God created Humans?